I propose a resolution to this discussion topic. You agree that you're wrong and everyone else is right.
I have proposed a resolution, and as you say, it doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a proposed resolution.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
I propose a resolution to this discussion topic. You agree that you're wrong and everyone else is right.
I have proposed a resolution, and as you say, it doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a proposed resolution.
I haven't ignored the data, I've acknowledged it in context, the study is quite limited in that it simply searches for terms used on Twitter. Is it still hate speech if a black guy uses the N-word, or a gay man refers to himself as the F-word? Because in that study those examples would be counted as hate speech. They've also included the 4 letter C word as hate speech, because you know, no one throws that around in any other context
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,990
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Again it really wasn't, it was a few scribblings which generally no one treats as a plan for anything with the level of seriousness as war.
Musk may think he and twitter are that serious. He would be wrong.
Just like putting "get rich plan" above this wouldn't make it a plan
1) write nonsense on internet
2) ...
3) get rich
Its really only a "peace plan" if other people take it seriously which as ever with Musks ramblings no one with any sense did.
I mean i suppose i could just about go as far as it was a "complete nonsensical, childish, naive, not thought out, unrelistic, aimed at simpletons and keeping Musk in the limelight that he so craves; peace plan"
Everyone else filed it in the bin where it deserved to go.
Yea and that is exactly what it would be "A proposed resolution", me not liking it or accepting the terms does not change what it is.
Way to miss the point.
Forcing one party to entirely capitulate isn't in any realistic sense a resolution to a discussion, just as giving up half a country to an aggressor isn't in any realistic sense a peace plan.
If the person got rich from that plan then it would be a "get rich plan".
Was that an own goal on your part?
No, yours, not that I expect you to understand still.
I think you're confused though because a peace plan would naturally require concessions, you seem to want a peace plan to essentially be "keep on fighting" or "Russia gives up and leaves" - those obviously aren't realistic peace plans, they're just a continuation of the status quo. Any peace plan put forward by Obama or anyone else would require concessions to Russia that would seem unpalatable yet necessary to stop the actual fighting.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 1,900
- Location
- London
Coming up to the one year anniversary of this thread. What’s the forums record for most pages in 12 months ? 541 is quite impressive
But I agreed with your post
Yes and the point was that you shouldn't agree with it, as it was a deliberately stupid position that doesn't make sense.
That fact that you do agree with it is quite telling, you're seemingly happy to accept something as being what it's called, rather than what it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,990
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
You seem to work on a different version of English to me :
noun
- 1.
a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
I think the only 'concession' that Russia will be getting is the (very loose) promise that almost every nation on the planet won't just steamroll into Ukraine en-mass to forcibly remove every item of his military he's invaded the sovereign country with.
If you had a Ferrari for sale worth £250k and I made you an offer of £100k which you outright rejected and said it was a silly offer, it does not change the fact that I made you an offer just because you found the terms unacceptable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,990
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Why does a peace plan naturally require concessions?
Some peace plans are more about reparations and future disarmament plus guarantees etc, such as the end of WW1
When one side is losing heavily they may need a peace plan to restore their lands or agree to some being granted in order to stop more being lost.
Eg this cuold go on for a year and Ukraine could take some of Russias lands, either by force or agreement. As it is Ukraine seems to want to only restore their borders, Russia does not have to come out ahead in a peace plan at all.
It could be restored pre 2014 borders and details of the compensation Russia will provide and for how long to put right what they did. It could also include complying with UN resolutions on war trials.
That would be a great example if it was in any way remotely similar.
No Musks's peace plan was basically "peace"
Nothing else mentioned.
At the moment Russia has given absolutely no indication of wanting peace or being honest about even having a discussion, which means the only way for there to be peace is for Ukraine to give up as Russia is the one that holds the keys to starting any negotiation for an actual peace, as the only two options Ukraine has until Russia shows some honest willingness to discuss things is to either keep fighting for survival (literal given that Russia seems to be willing to actively target civilians), or to give up.
Musk didn't mention any concessions that might be possible, he just said "peace" as if that was all it took.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,990
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
- Status